Individuals, Not Guns, The True Culprits Of Crime

The act of crime, it is asserted, hinges on individuals rather than on the tools they deploy. This is my retort to the op-ed featured: ‘Beliefs about firearms persist, seducing naive populace’, originally from New York Daily News (Aug. 4). This commentary reflects some of the most fallacious, nonsensical and misguidedly uninformed views I’ve encountered from individuals advocating for firearms regulation or forfeiture in quite a while.

The proposition stating that it’s people, not firearms, who cause harm, is seemingly dismissed as untrue and yet the masses accept it. A firearm, devoid of consciousness or agency, is incapable of independent action; it requires human intervention to function. The suggestion that proscribing firearms, particularly the kind used in the recent New York attack – the basis for the op-ed – is preposterous and smacks offensively of condescension towards the public.

To entertain this line of ‘reasoning’ would necessitate the assertion that it was the commercial airliners, devoid of agency, that were responsible for the loss of 2,977 lives on 9/11, and not the terrorists who manipulated them. It would imply that it was the knife itself, again void of intent or consciousness, that was accountable for the murder of four students in Idaho, not the assailant who brandished it. This reasoning would lead to the assertion that the flammable liquid and the very spark that ignited it are to blame for the quick, horrific deaths of 87 people in the Bronx’s Happy Land Dance Club arson event in 1990, not the arsonist.

The list continues. But should I elaborate further? The origin of this astonishingly illogical argument is the very city that, while enforcing rigid, constitutionally questionable, and evidently futile gun control measures, is simultaneously contemplating a mayoral candidate who has publicly expressed an inclination towards both defunding the enforcement apparatus and rethinking the function of prisons.

So, allow me to present a straightforward rebuttal. A speculative world inhabited solely by humans, bereft of guns, would still witness strife and chaos. Conversely, a world teeming with guns but devoid of humans would be characterized by serenity and harmony. For, in the latter scenario, firearms, being inanimate objects, lack the capacity to create havoc without human deployment.

Arguing for gun control based on the instruments used during crime acts, instead of focusing on the individuals who wield these instruments, equates to blaming tools for the actions they are forced to perform by their wielders. This approach negates the importance of human agency and decision-making in the equation, attributing the cause to inanimate objects incapable of initiating action.

The point here is not to absolve parties responsible for crimes or to trivialize the grave dangers weapons can present when in the wrong hands. Rather, it’s to emphasize the critical role of the individual in any act of violence, intentional or otherwise. Guns cannot ‘commit’ crimes any more than knives or planes or matches can. Such notions merely distract from the true heart of the matter – the people who abuse these tools in the first place.

It’s not surprising that these kinds of arguments arise in places with strict laws regulating tool ownership, a scenario which clearly doesn’t prevent crime. This only underscores the fact that laws limiting access to inanimate objects cannot effectively curb violence or crime. Instead, factoring in the human element, focusing on prevention, and addressing root causes should be the real focus.

Irrespective of the tools used, the people who commit heinous acts are the true culprits. Mayhem and destruction will still occur even in the absence of a particular type of tool, because violence is a product of human action, not a characteristic of the tools they use. Conversely, tools, bereft of human intervention, are harmless regardless of their potential for harm.

It’s essential to remember that the problem is much more complex than it appears. The ongoing conversations around guns, crime, and the role of individuals are necessary and important, but they shouldn’t pivot on simplistic arguments that fail to capture the breadth and depth of the issue.